alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17928]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Striker Industries, Inc., Common Stock, $.50 Par 
Value) File No. 1-13118

June 30, 1998.
    Striker Industries, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and 
Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the Boston 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or ``Exchange'').
    The reasons cited in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    The Company is not at present in compliance with the minimum 
shareholders' equity maintenance requirement mandated by the Rules of 
the Exchange for continued listing of the Company's Security on the 
Exchange.
    The Company discussed the shareholders' equity maintenance 
requirement with the Listing Manager at the BSE and received an 
extension of time within which to attempt to comply with the 
requirement, but was unable to do so within the time frame of the 
extension. The Company subsequently filed with the Exchange for 
voluntary withdrawal and delisting, requesting a no objection letter 
from the Exchange. Consequently, so far as is known to the Company, it 
has complied with the Rules of the Exchange governing the delisting of 
securities.
    The Company notified the Exchange on June 15, 1998, that it was 
requesting the withdrawal and delisting of its Security from the 
Exchange, and, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, the Exchange raised no 
objection to such withdrawal and delisting.
    The Company's Security also trades on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market.
    Any interested person may, on or before July 22, 1998, submit by 
letter to the Security of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the 
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the Exchange 
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the 
protection of investors.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will 
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, 
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant 
to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17928 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### *In re Parental Rights to B.P.,*

No. 91925-9.

Motion for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 32437-1-III, June 4, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 113. *Granted*February 11, 2016.
# ChemPol_Offeror_Spreadsheet

# ActiveNSN_List_May2015

# Sheet2
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16609]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Application Tendered for Filing with the Commission

June 17, 1998.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a.Type of Application: Minor license.
    b. Project No.: P-11616-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 1, 1998.
    d. Applicant: City of Portland, Michigan.
    e. Name of Project: Portland Municipal Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Grand River in Ionia County, Michigan.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-824(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Robert Masselink, P.E., Glen Hendrix, Earth 
Tech, Inc., 5555 Glenwood Hills Pkwy, Grand Rapids, MI 49588, (616) 
942-9600.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at (202) 219-2846.
    j. Comment Date: 60 days from the date of filing of the 
application.
    k. Description of Project: The constructed project consists of a 
dam and reservoir, a forebay and powerhouse located at the south 
abutment containing two turbine-generator units with a total installed 
capacity of 375 kilowatts, and appurtenant facilities. The project will 
generate about 1,572 megawatt-hours per year.
    l. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the 
MICHIGAN STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by 
Sec. 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
    m. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's 
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes 
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to 
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the 
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person 
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of 
the request on the applicant.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16609 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3026 

To require that a College Scorecard be maintained for each institution of 

higher education that participates in programs under title IV of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2019 

Mrs. TRAHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To require that a College Scorecard be maintained for each 

institution of higher education that participates in programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘The College Data Ac5 cess Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3026 IH

1 SEC. 2. COLLEGE SCORECARD REQUIRED. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Education shall 

3 maintain and annually update the College Scorecard de4 scribed in subsection (b). 

5 (b) COLLEGE SCORECARD DESCRIBED.—The College 

6 Scorecard described in this subsection is the online tool 

7 maintained by the Department of Education as of the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act that allows users— 

9 (1) to view certain data relating to each institu10 tion of higher education eligible to participate in 

11 programs under title IV of the Higher Education 

12 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), including in13 stitution and program-level data on the net costs of 

14 attendance, transfer and enrollment rates, gradua15 tion rates, average student loan debt, threshold 

16 earnings, and average earnings after graduation; 

17 and 

18 (2) to compare such institutions and programs 

19 based on such data. 

20 SEC. 3. DISPLAY OF COLLEGE SCORECARD BY INSTITU21 TIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

22 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

23 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

24 following: 

25 ‘‘(30)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 

26 (B), the institution will prominently display, on the 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3026 IH

1 home page of the institution’s website, a link to the 

2 most recent version of the institution’s College 

3 Scorecard as maintained by the Department of Edu4 cation pursuant to section 2 of the College Data Ac5 cess Act, or any successor to such online tool. 

6 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an 

7 institution that is a junior or community college.’’. 

8 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the date that 

10 is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
### Exhibit 32.2

### 

### CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Properties Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia L. Hedrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









|/s/ Cynthia L. Hedrick 
|-----------------------
|Cynthia L. Hedrick     
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 15, 2006
No. 10-10695.

#### Raymond L. Semler, Petitioner v. Cal Ludeman, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al.

565 U.S. 803, 132 S. Ct. 373,

181 L. Ed. 2d 4,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6798.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
*DoD 4000.25-7-M, March 2004*

DLM 4000.25, Volume 4

**DIC QB1 FORMAT**

**REQUEST FOR RETRANSMISSION OF BILL (Copy)**

146

APPENDIX 3.29

1
FW: GCC PSD SOB discussion

Rick.Boddicker to

:

Gail Fallon 

From: <Rick.Boddicker@state.sd.us>

To: Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US@EPA

History:

This message has been forwarded.

Hope this helps. 

Rick
From: Rombough, Kyrik 

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 1:08 PM

To: Boddicker, Rick

Subject: GCC PSD SOB discussion

Here is the quick cut and paste from GCC Dacotah’s PSD review on sulfur dioxide emission controls for 

the Kiln #6 (dry kiln). 

There are five control techniques that are technically feasible and practical to install or 

implement for the kiln #6 upgrade. The five approaches are the inherent sulfur dioxide removal, 

dry reagent injection, hot meal injection, spray dryer absorbers, and low sulfur fuel and raw 

material.

The dry reagent injection, hot meal injection, and spray dryer absorber all commonly use 

hydrated lime (limestone) as its absorption process. The inherent sulfur dioxide removal 

process uses the crushed limestone (hydrated lime) in the cement kiln to absorb and reduce sulfur 

dioxide emissions. Therefore, there is no significant difference between these absorption 

techniques, except that there is a cost associated with installing the dry reagent injection, hot 

meal injection, and spray dryer absorber systems. All four techniques are comparable on 

controlling sulfur dioxide emissions.

GCC Dacotah quarries a majority of its raw material at the site. Therefore, shipping costs 

would make it economically infeasible to lower sulfur dioxide emission by lowering the sulfur 

content of the raw materials because of shipping costs. The coal used to feed kiln #6 is shipped 

from the Power River Basin in Wyoming and is considered a low sulfur coal. 

GCC Dacotah proposes using the inherent sulfur dioxide removal process as BACT for sulfur 

dioxide. The department reviewed the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to 

determine if GCC Dacotah’s proposal was considered BACT. Based on the RBLC, BACT for 

“new” cement plants and modifications to existing plants has been inherent sulfur dioxide 

removal and/or limits on the sulfur content of the coal and raw material in a 

preheater/precalcinator type kiln. Therefore, the department agrees with GCC Dacotah’s BACT 

determination on using the inherent sulfur dioxide removal process for cement kilns. 

Kyrik Rombough

Engineering Manager I

523 East Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an
officer of First Niles Financial, Inc. (the Registrant) that the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant for
such period.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ William L. Stephens              
|                      |  | William L. Stephens                  
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      | 
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Lawrence Safarek                 
|                      |  | Lawrence Safarek                     
|                      |  | Vice President and Treasurer         
|                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.26


 


September 21, 2010


 


T. Joseph Natale


735 State Street, Suite 402


Santa Barbara, CA 93101


 


RE: Viral Genetics Latin America, LLC (the "VGLA")



 


Dear Sir:


 


Further to our discussions, and for good and
lawful consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Viral Genetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") and you agree as follows:


 


	1.		You represent and warrant that you are the owner of a membership interest of 2% of
VGLA (the "LLC Interest"), and further that the LLC Interest is free of all encumbrances, liens, or claims and that
you are free to sell, transfer, dispose and assign same.



	2.		Upon execution hereof, the Company hereby agrees to purchase, and you agree to sell,
transfer and assign to the Company, the LLC Interest in exchange for five million (5,000,000) shares of common stock of the Company
(the "Shares").



	3.		You have requested and hereby instruct the Company to deliver the Shares as follows:



	a.		2,678,571 Shares shall be registered to:



David W. Odell




2927 De la Vina Street


Santa
Barbara, CA 93105 


	b.		2,321,429 Shares shall be registered to you.





	4.		Upon execution by you, this is a binding legal agreement.



 


 


VIRAL GENETICS, INC.


 


/s/                                        


Haig Keledjian, CEO and President


 


	AGREED: T. JOSEPH NATALE
	 	 
	Authorized Signatory:	/s/                                                   
	 	 
	Name and Title:	________________________
**DAAN-09-05**

**First Article Testing (Contractor)**

(September 2016)

Contractor First Article Test (FAT) Report 

1 EACH = 1 FAT Report 

Number of units to be tested: _________****

Disposition of FAT units:  ________

For Testing: 

Inspection: Origin

Acceptance: Destination 

FOB: Destination 

Ship To:  Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) listed on the “Issued By” block of this award.  Provide an information copy to the Administering Contracting Officer if different than the PCO.  

Delivery Schedule: 

___ Days ARO: Submit Test Report

___ Days: Government Review and Notification to Contractor  

___ Days: Completion of Production Units  

____________________ 

___ Total Days ARO 

(End of Notice)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6267

SCOTT ETHAN KAHL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAVIS MCLAUGHLIN, Deputy; DICK SANDERS, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (00-165- AMD) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Ethan Kahl, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court's order is dated January 28, 2000, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 1, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Scott Ethan Kahl appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kahl v. McLaughlin , No. 00-165-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK>                         0000764403
<NAME>                        E'town Corporation & Subsidiaries

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      659,339
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     85,163
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          70,074
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        33,732
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,308
<COMMON>                                       179,156
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       (3,845)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             53,922
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 229,233
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,000
<PREFERRED>                                        227
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           252,674
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              89,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       13,341
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      494
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 250,839
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  848,308
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      162,195
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             9,814
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     114,773
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     124,587
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         37,608
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,108
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  40,716
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        19,416
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,300
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        813
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   20,487
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        17,526
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       16,109
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          32,458
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.36

<FN>
All amounts in thousands of dollars except per share amounts.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Swanson. Brian (OST) 

t>PT' o^T' "2^00 - e>'^-=F3 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Aloha, 

Anuhea_Naeole @ nps.gov 

Thursday, December 29, 2011 4:14 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); EAS (OST) 

Answer to Pacific Wings 

My name is Anuhea Naeole and I'm currently a STEP with the Kalaupapa NPS. I'm a 

student worker who comes down to Kalaupapa to work during my breaks and have 

been working down here for the past two years. I've had many problems with Pacific 

Wings from being unreliable and definitely unaffordable. Being a college student who 

goes to school in Portland, Oregon I pay cheaper flights to go from topside Molokai 

to Portland, Oregon. How is a trip from top side Molokai to Oahu then to Portland, 

Oregon cheaper than going from Kalaupapa to top side? With Makani Kai I was able 

to fly in and out of Kalaupapa for a reasonable price that I can afford. I do NOT 

support Pacific Wings and strongly prefer Makani Kai for their affordable prices and 

their excellent services. 

In the past two weeks that I have been working down here both my parents had to 

fly in and out for medical reasons. With Makani Kai starting, they were able to fly in 

and out numerous times and didn't have to stress on financial burdens because 

they could afford the flights that Makani Kai has to offer. So Makani Kai has been 

such a great service for everyone not just myself. They have reasonable flights and 

they have been such a pleasure with costumer service and flight shechedules that 

work for everyone. 

I do NOT support Pacific Wings Petition and would love to see that Makani Kai stays 

here for many years to come. 

Mahalo, 

Anuhea Naeole